DOE v. Conventual Franciscans also known as Friars Minor Conventual etc., Defendant-Appellant. (2023)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alexander M. Tisch, J.), entered October 3, 2022, which denied so much of defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint of Ark 265 Doe (Doe 265) as untimely and/or dismissal of Doe 265's causes of action as to negligent training, supervision, and retention, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff's claims against the appealing defendant (defendant) were properly revived under CPLR 214–g.  Even though the alleged sexual abuse occurred outside of New York, plaintiff was a New York resident at the time the action accrued, and defendant is also a New York resident (see Samuel W. v. United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, 219 A.D.3d 421, 194 N.Y.S.3d 25 [1st Dept. 2023]).  The court also properly denied the motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims of negligent hiring, supervision, and retention.  While defendant argues that plaintiff fails to allege specific facts that it had notice of the priest's criminal proclivities, at this pre-answer stage of the litigation, such information is in its the sole possession and control.  Therefore, dismissal of these causes of action was properly denied on this ground as “facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated” (see G.T. v. Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn, New York, 211 A.D.3d 413, 180 N.Y.S.3d 75 [1st Dept. 2022];  CPLR 3211[d]).